This quantitative survey (75 respondents) builds directly on our earlier **qualitative research on privacy experience on Ethereum** ([Link to the qualitative report](https://pse.dev/blog/privacy-experience-report)), which identified seven core themes shaping how users perceive, trust, and adopt privacy tools. This report should be read as a continuation of that work: the survey was designed to **test, validate, and size those qualitative hypotheses** across a broader and more diverse set of experienced Ethereum users. **Key takeaways at a glance:** - **Privacy is non-negotiable, but current solutions fall short.** - Privacy importance is rated **high (3.3 / 4)**, while satisfaction is **low (1.7 / 4)**. - Users are moderately confident today (**2.4 / 4**) but pessimistic about the future (**1.9 / 4**). - **The adoption gap is driven by experience failures, not lack of interest.** - **86%** of respondents have abandoned a privacy flow at least once. - The top blocker is **complexity and usability (58%)**, far outweighing cost or regulation. - **Active privacy tools are widely tried, but rarely habitual.** - Tools requiring manual steps (mixers, stealth addresses, shielded pools) have **~70% reach** but only **~15–17% habitual use**. - Passive or background tools (private mempools, RPCs) reach fewer users but are **significantly stickier**. - **Users strongly prefer privacy by default.** - **73%** prefer systems that are *private by default with an option to share*. - “Missing in my wallet” is a top blocker, pointing to the need for wallet-native privacy. - **Trust depends on verifiability and clarity, not branding.** - The strongest trust signals are **open-source code (61%)**, clear documentation and architecture (~46%), and **transaction previews/simulations (52%)**. - Social proof and marketing rank much lower. - **Trade-offs reveal clear limits.** - Users are willing to trade **time** (69% will wait a few extra minutes) and tolerate limited extra steps. - They resist **higher fees, network switching, and compatibility breaks**, which sharply reduce adoption. - **Confidence does not equal capability.** - Segmentation shows that even highly capable users frequently abandon privacy flows. - The *low confidence / high capability* group exhibits the **highest abandonment (~90%)**, highlighting verification anxiety and mental model gaps as critical issues. The findings reinforce a central conclusion from the qualitative phase: **the gap in privacy adoption is not caused by lack of interest, but by experience failures**. Users overwhelmingly consider privacy *very important*, yet remain dissatisfied with current solutions. Complexity, unclear guarantees, and verification anxiety dominate abandonment, while a strong majority prefer **privacy by default** rather than opt-in flows. --- ## 0. Who This Survey Represents Before interpreting the results, it is important to clarify **who these findings describe**. This survey reflects a highly experienced, technically skewed Ethereum audience: - **Total responses:** 75 - **Ethereum tenure:** 92% have been involved for **3+ years**; 15% for **9+ years** - **Activity level:** ~50% interact with Ethereum daily; another ~30% weekly - **Roles:** Developers, researchers, and security professionals make up over half of respondents This context matters. If privacy tools are frequently abandoned or misunderstood by this group, the usability barrier for less experienced users is likely significantly higher. ## 1. Clarity of Privacy Scope: High Importance, Low Confidence **Quantitative results:** - **Importance of privacy:** **3.3 / 4** (High) - **Satisfaction with current privacy:** **1.7 / 4** (Low, net dissatisfied) - **Confidence in current privacy guarantees:** **2.4 / 4** (Moderate) - **Confidence privacy will remain intact in the future:** **1.9 / 4** (Low) Despite high experience levels, confidence remains limited. Users care deeply about privacy, but do not feel secure that they understand or can rely on existing protections. **Interpretation:** This validates the qualitative finding that privacy tools fail to clearly communicate scope. Users are not rejecting privacy, they are uncertain what they are actually getting. ## 2. Motivation: Privacy as Control, Not Secrecy **Quantitative results (free-text + ranking):** Users consistently frame privacy as: - **Control:** choosing what is revealed, to whom, and when - **Freedom:** a digital extension of fundamental rights - **Security hygiene:** protection against scams, extortion, profiling, and physical risk **Top motivations:** 1. Personal safety & security (~60%) 2. Anti-profiling / identity separation (~55%) 3. Asset and balance protection (~50%) **Top perceived risks:** - Targeted attacks and scams - Loss of funds or access - Surveillance by governments or large platforms **Interpretation:** The survey confirms that privacy demand is principled and pragmatic, not ideological or fringe, aligning directly with qualitative insights. ## 3. Usage: Widely Tried, Rarely Habitual **Quantitative results:** A clear pattern emerges: - **Active tools** (stealth addresses, mixers, shielded pools) have **high reach (≈70%)** but **low habitual use (≈15–17%)** - **Passive or infrastructure tools** (private mempools, RPCs) have lower reach (~50%) but higher daily usage (~23%) | **Tool Category** | **Reach** | **Habit** | **Usage** | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | **Stealth / One-time Addresses** | **73%** (54 users) | 15% (11 users) | Wide but Sporadic | | **Mixers or Privacy Pools** | **70%** (52 users) | 17% (13 users) | Wide but Sporadic | | **Shielded Pools** | **69%** (51 users) | 17% (13 users) | Wide but Sporadic | | **ZK Identity / Proofs** | 68% (50 users) | 16% (12 users) | Wide but Sporadic | | **Private Mempools / MEV** | 68% (50 users) | **23%** (17 users) | Stickier | | **Private Voting** | 59% (44 users) | 9% (7 users) | Sporadic | | **Private L2s / Rollups** | 57% (42 users) | 13% (10 users) | Moderate | | **Private Relayers** | 54% (40 users) | 9% (7 users) | Sporadic | | **Private / Custom RPCs** | 51% (38 users) | **23%** (17 users) | Niche Stickier | ![image.png](/articles/privacy-experience-report/px-usage.png) **Interpretation:** The moment privacy requires users to leave their normal flow, usage drops sharply. Privacy that runs in the background is more likely to stick. ## 4. Technical Friction: Usability Is the Primary Blocker **Quantitative results:** Top blockers: - **Complex or hard to use:** 58% (43 votes) - High gas costs: 32% (24 votes) - Regulatory uncertainty: 31% (23 votes) - Missing in wallet or favorite dapps: 30% (22 votes) Additional signals: - **~86%** of respondents have abandoned a privacy flow at least once - Top reasons: confusion and uncertainty about safety - The most requested feature **with 74% of all users**, is to **have private sends as default** in existing wallets **User quotes** - *"I need a switch in my wallet to turn on private mode."* - *"Unclear what it would do... Unsure the tool was safe."* - *"Native wallet support for stealth addresses... making privacy seamless like HTTPS."* **Interpretation:** This strongly confirms the qualitative finding that privacy UX is fragile. Abandonment is the norm, not the exception. --- ## 5. Trade-offs: Time Is Acceptable, Workflow Breakage Is Not Users are willing to trade **time**, but not **cost or workflow disruption**: - 69% will wait a few minutes longer - 53% accept 2–3 extra screens - Only ~25% accept higher fees or network switching | **Trade-off** | **Votes** | **Percentage** | **Verdict** | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | **Wait up to a few minutes longer** | **47** | **69.1%** | **😍 Highly Acceptable** | | 2–3 extra confirmations or screens | 36 | 52.9% | 🙂 Acceptable | | Using a separate wallet or account | 26 | 38.2% | 😐 Borderline | | Signing multiple transactions | 18 | 26.5% | ☹️ High Friction | | Switching to a different network or L2 | 18 | 26.5% | ☹️ High Friction | | Pay up to ~5% more in fees | 17 | 25.0% | ☹️ High Friction | | Lower compatibility with some dapps | 8 | 11.8% | 😡 Unacceptable | | Withdrawal delays up to 1 day | 8 | 11.8% | 😡 Unacceptable | | Fixed deposit/withdrawal sizes | 6 | 8.8% | 😡 Unacceptable | **Interpretation:** Privacy can be slower, but it must remain affordable and integrated into existing workflows. --- ## 6. Trust & Verification: Don’t Trust, Verify (But Make It Legible)

Privacy Stewards of Ethereum

Message History

Add new keyword

Delivery option(s)